So far, despite GM Yermolinsky's complaint that the match has been "mediocre", I've been thrilled by the games.  Most of the games have been real slugfests, with only game 10 looking rather boring... And even game 10 developed into a real fight!

Some people want to credit the Sofia rule for this, but that's absolute rubbish.  There are three main reasons for the fighting chess: a) it's only a twelve game match, thus making every win that much more precious b) the match score has been tight, so one player could not really just try to shut down his opponent c) the players are fighters!   

There's no way we could ever know for sure, but we would have had fighting games with or without Topalov's proclamation.  In the early games, Topalov insisted on going to the arbiter. That was just rude gamesmanship. I don't know if they used the arbiters to agree to draws the last two games, but at least they didn't have to play out the 3-fold repetition or force all the pieces off.   

I don't know whether a 24 or 18 game match would be better. Stamina is an important element in chess, but the cost probably would have been a few strategic draws.  I'd prefer a slightly longer match to play-offs.  But I realise that it's not financially feasible to hold longer matches now.

Nothing seemed to happen till move 49. Basically no errors, and no serious advantage for either player.
Although Topalov seemed to be slightly better between move 40 and move 48.
Then Anand gave up his b5 pawn, letting Topalov have two passed pawns on the Q-side in exchange for seemingly vague attacking chances on the K-side.
Topalov probably missed a better endgame with 50....Re4 iso 50...Rf4!. Then the tables turned and Topalov was on the defence, with Anands kingside action taking concrete and menacing form. 
Topalov found an accurate and correct path to a draw.
Good fight by both players, and indeed and advertisement for not playing short draws!

At the 2-hour mark in Game 11, Topalov fully equalised against Anand's English Opening, but the position seems to suit Anand's style better. It will be interesting to see if White can engineer an effective d4 break or will have to settle for queenside play.

MnB - it was clear to me also that the ending was better for White, he could push with minimum risk. For this reason I agree with you the other alternative would have been worth a look, although Anand proved he was up to the defensive task Toppys endgame play in this case was not exactly asking many questions of his opponent.

MNb, as Giri pointed out, Bxa6 would have lead to a cleaner draw, almost certainly by a perpetual check, but Anand missed it.  Or maybe Anand didn't miss it?  Maybe he saw it and decided to keep the game complicated?

Regarding white's a4, I don't know when you were thinking of playing it.  Could you give an example?

I have two other questions. Why not 25...Bxa6 26.Qxc6 Qa1+ instead of this endgame? I consider it slightly better for White, am I wrong?
Why did Topalov did not play a2-a4 at some stage? It is what I would have done and imo White preserves a nagging edge that way.
In short, I do not understand a few choices. The obvious explanation is that I don't understand chess. So can somebody enlighten me?

Anand showed brilliant timing in returning to the Grunfeld only now!

I was impressed by Topalov's g5 because I didn't see any way at all to put pressure on Black.  But even that wasn't enough.   

Yes, Black was the only one with winning chances at the end, but they didn't amount to much.   

How will Topalov improve this line for game 12???

(Unless Topalov wins game 11, he'll have to come up with an improvement.)

TN wrote on 05/07/10 at 14:58:42:

Topalov has the bishop pair and more space, but a draw seems very likely.